[Dwarf-Discuss] debug_aranges use and overhead

[David Blaikie]

Posted an issue to the dwarfstd.org to propose removing
.debug_aranges, will follow up with a link here once it's
accepted/posted publicly.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 2:02 PM Greg Clayton <clayborg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As long as there is a DW_AT_ranges on the CU the is complete, that is good enough for LLDB. No one seems to consistently emit .debug_aranges these days so we definitely don't rely on it.
>
> Greg
>
> > On Jun 14, 2022, at 1:10 PM, David Blaikie via Dwarf-Discuss <dwarf-discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote:
> >
> > Given the discussion previously in this thread - does anyone have
> > particular objections to removing .debug_aranges? (in favor of/perhaps
> > with specific wording that /requires/ CU level ranges to be specified
> > (ie: it's not acceptable to have a subprogram with non-empty range in
> > a CU which doesn't cover that range) - so a consumer can look at the
> > CU and, if it has no ranges, conclude that it has no addresses covered
> > and skip the CU for address-related computation purposes)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
> > Dwarf-Discuss at lists.dwarfstd.org
> > http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
>